The French like Jerry Lewis.
[ul]
[sup]There has to be a message in there somewhere![/sup][/ul]
Hell, I like Jerry. The thing is they adore him. Some kinda fetish from what I understand.
I wish I could find the exact quote, but…
In PJ ORourke’s “An Intellectual Experiment,” he described a biography of deGaulle that explained his cold shoulder towards America as a sensible distancing of himself from America’s propensity for turning every C.A.R.E. package into a Great Crusade.
Also, remember: They are a funny race…
This BS is constantly recycled here at the SDMB, in spite of this article by Cecil, dated 01-Oct-1999 and frequently cited since.
It’s not as if France is the only NATO member to have sold arms and military advice to Iraq is it? Particularly during the Iran-Iraq War.
I’m going to oblige. “They don’t like anyone” is a purely prejudiced statement.
As for the interests thing, I didn’t know this quote, but I certainly believe that as far as international relationships are concerned, nations usually behave according to their interests, not according to moral principles or friendship. If it doesn’t cost much, they can occasionnaly promote their values, though. Not that there can’t be a sincere desire, even amongst politicians, to do the “right” thing in the international field. But more often than not, geo-stategical or financial considerations win the day. Speeches may be about “friendship”, but negociations are usually about “interets”.
Though I can think of a counter-example : It is often said that one of the main reason why the former french president Mitterrand was reluctant to engage in any serious action against Serbia during the wars in Yugoslavia was his view that Serbia has been historically an all-time ally of France. But Mitterrand was a very peculiar individual, very well-know for his indefectible faithfulness to his friend (for the better and the worst…the worst including WWII collaborators) and who had a strong interest in history. That would be an exception, certainly not a norm (plus, refusing to really take side in this conflict didn’t seriously compromise France’s interests, anyway).
Indeed. Germany and the US, at least, did the same.
It seems to me to be an excedingly simplified view of european history. Though it’s true that until the XIX° century and the Crimea war, the UK and France had never been allies (as far as I remember), and quite often ennemies, the european diplomacy didn’t revolve around this issue. The British were certainly more concerned with France than with any other european country (it’s not like, say Austria, could seriously threaten the UK, rivals with her on seas or try to grab her colonies) But France being a continental power, the reverse wasn’t necessarily true. Austria was a much more direct danger for her than the UK was. Most of the time, the UK wasn’t directly involved in European conflicts.
Also, France wasn’t a “superpower”, even during the period where she was the most powerful European country (that would be roughly from around 1650 until the Napoleonic wars), because her power wasn’t overwhelming. Other countries could rival with her, and could expect to be able to beat the crap out of her. The UK was even less of a superpower, and anyway, as I already said, rarely in the way of the various armies which crossed Europe from Sweden to Spain and from France to Russia. The UK was essentially a side player, more interested in making sure that nobody would ever reach this kind of “superpower” status.
Actually, I would say that the country which had been the closest thing to a “superpower” in European history was Turkey. Fortunately for Europe, she was fighting on two fronts, in Europe and in Asia, and had often difficulties to keep up.
Clair
mea culpa. I haven’t mastered the art of smilies yet, so please pardon my flip remark about France not liking anyone; it was not made in earnest.
I couldn’t track down the source…something which is bothering me, but will persevere. I mentioned it because it is incredibly pithy and forthright, as well as a foil to those (no names, please) who feel that placing the interests of your country above another’s is some kind of evil incarnate specific to the United States.
Obligatory Simpsons quote:
Hank: By the way, Homer, what’s your least favorite country: Italy or
France?
Homer: France.
Hank: [chuckles] Nobody ever says Italy.
This is an interesting topic. Something that’s been touched on is the Anglo-Saxon world, which has become more and more of an interest of mine. However, I contend that there is an Anglo empire. I don’t think that England, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are even seperate countries in the old view of it. I do think there is a communal empire that we all share with America being the kid that grew up to be the biggest and England being the patriarch that has passed on it’s torch but has kept a strong hand in it.
The idea of friends vs interests can’t be seperated as easily as I think it has in this argument. If the two sides negotiating are friends it is MUCH MUCH easier to come to a resolution. You don’t feel threatened by giving concessions to a friend. So having “friend” status with another country is definitely helpful. When two friends go out chasing girls for instance, one friend will help the other get the girl that he likes by talking up his game, or whatever. When they both want the same girl then it makes it more difficult for either of them to come to a consensus opinion, and that can break up a friendship. However conversely when two non-friends are going after girls, they don’t try and help each other. So the interests are definitely the higher priority, but the friend status has a lot to do with how the interests are obtained.
I think that the Anglo empire idea has a lot of legitimacy, and that it explains a lot more. We view other anglo countries as being part of our own. It’s very much like jewish view. How foreign jews can be insular within their culture even though they are not from the same country, or even the same region.
I think that the aims and the cultures of the countries within the Anglo empire are so similar that there really isn’t that much dissent as long as ONE of the countries is the one in charge, so America being the superpower suits Britain just fine because they know they’ll be invited to all the good parties. In otherwords, what’s good for America is good for England and vice versa.
I don’t believe that the British empire ever fell, I think the reins were passed on. And I also think that because of that, the Anglo empire will remain in place for a very long time to come. I won’t even go into lingual and cultural hegemony.
Erek
I think this is a very apt analogy. The United States’ relationship with england is very much like that of a parent of an adult child. America’s influence is now much greater than England’s, but we value their opinion much more than that of other countries of similar power. While we may disagree on some issues, we are VERY wary of going against them on anything major. Likewise, England will back our play on many things that they may not fully support, as long as it does not conflict with their core values. The same cannot be said of France. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are viewed by most Americans, IMHO, as younger siblings(canada especially). As eldest children often do, we think of them as having had it easier then we did(not having fought a revolution and all). We don’t feel compelled to voice support for everything they do, and often vehemently disagree(see Canada, Marijuana policy and). However, we wouldn’t even debate jumping to their defence in a crisis, and have little tolerance for outsiders messing with them.
I have even heard people from Canada Australia and New Zealand refer to American action as “We”. I
Erek
Fine, then…
I found it. It’ s attributed to De Gaulle.
Perhaps the American-French relationship is like how an American sports fan hates another team’s sports fans. They like to say they “hate” them, and they like to ridicule them for various perceived characteristics/faults, but if push came to shove, and one of them was in trouble, I think they would help each other out for the most part (that France-to-Libya flyover thing being for the less part, I suppose…grrrr).
Yes, but we didn’t go so far as to sell Iraq (or Iran) F-16s.
i wonder how much money rich brits have invested in the USA. the US is the dominant english speaking country and england is small potatoes now. besides, the US put mcdonalds in a country prides itself on fine food. at least they think it’s fine food. i think shepard’s pie is pretty good myself.
Dal Timgar
They can’t get over their defeat in the French and Indian War (in which a corrupt French administration MANAGED (with great stupidity) to lose Canada to the British. This really took effort, as the French commander (Gen. Montcalm) should have had no trouble in beating the British. Montcalm was sabotaged by his own countrymen, and France lost her New World empire.
After that , France was plunged into revolution, and lost its world power status.
My question was…why did the french neglect their navy? France could have easily been a world power into the 20th century, if it had an effective blue-water navy.
The french lost their superpower status, and the memory still nags them!
Mainly because navies are expensive, and wouldn’t have significantly helped France fight a war with a continental rival. Actually, IIRC, France usually had the second-strongest navy in the world until fairly late in the 19th century, when Germany began a crash shipbuilding program. Returning to my original point, as France began to fear Germany’s military strength (in the 1860’s and afterwards) it devoted more and more of its resources to its army. As a result, its Navy suffered.
He wasn’t sabotaged, he just didn’t receive support, because Canada (“some acres of snow”) was probably the last of France’s priorities at this time. It may be called the “french and Indian war” in the US, but it’s remembered in France as the “7 years war”, with the Prussians as the main ennemies. Even concerning colonies, France was more interested in keeping the french west indies than Canada.
The answer is obvious : France was a continental power, and spending money on the army was more important than spending it on the navy. And anyway, France did have an effective blue water navy. Less so than the UK, certainly, but that’s quite logical if you look at a map.